A certified copy of a registered will is admissible in evidence to prove the contents of the original will, even if the execution of the original will is not proved, if the original will is not forthcoming and is being withheld by the respondents.

Mahajan, J.

1. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent decision of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff is the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Punjab, jullundur a registered society under the Societies Registration Act (No. 21 of 1860). The property in dispute belonged to one Girdhari Lal. The defendants are related to him in the third degree. The following pedigree-table discloses their relationship:-

DEWAN CHAND _____________________|___________________________ | | Ganga Ram Shiv Dayal ______|____________ ____________|____________ | | | | Vir Bhan Jai Bhan Girdhari Lal Bihari Lal | | = died issueless Dev Raj | Smt. Dhan Devi widow Defendant Sukhdeo | No. 1 Defendant Smt. Rukmani daughter No. 2 Girdhari. Girdhari Lal was a resident of Sujanpur, tahsil Pathankot, district Gurdaspur. It seems that he was possessed of considerable property, but in the present dispute we are concerned with land measuring 558 Kanals 19 Marias. He made a will on the 16th of June, 1914. By this will he bequeathed his entire property to his wife Dhan Devi. She was to enjoy its income for her life but was not entitled to alienate the same. After her death, a residential house and two shops described in the will were to go to the daughter, Smt. Rukmani. She too was not entitled to alienate them and after her death they were to devolve on her children. 10 Ghamaons of land i.e., 80 kanals was to vest in Arya Samaj Sujanpur after the death of Smt. Dhan Devi and the balance of the land was to go to the plaintiff Sabha. This will is witnessed by a large number of witnesses and was registered the next day, that is, the 17th of June, 1914. Girdhari Lal died in the year 1938 and his land was mutated in favour of his widow. The widow died on the 12th of March, 1942, and on her death the land was mutated in the name of the defendants on the and of April, 1342, and the mutation was sanctioned on the 3Oth of April, 1942.

2 The present suit was filed for possession of the land by the Sabha on the nth of March, 1954, that is, the last day of Limitation. The suit was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Gurdaspur, with an application for its transfer to the Court of the Senior Subordinate judge, Gurdaspur, on the ground that another suit between the parties was pending before that Court. This application was made under Section 23 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge sent this case for determination to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur. This Court registered the suit on the 12th of April, 1954. It may be mentioned that an application was made to the District Judge to review his order assigning the suit to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur, by the defendants, but this application was rejected, principally on the ground that the plaintiff belonged to Juliun-dur and the defendants had to come to defend the suit from Delhi; and the balance of convenience was that the suit should be tried at Gurdaspur and not at Pathankot. The contention of the defendants in the review petition was that the land being situate in the tahsil of Pathankot, the suit should have been sent to the Subordinate Judge, Pathankot, for determination.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants on a number of grounds, but it is not necessary to recapitulate them. Suffice it to say that the principal defences were that the suit was barred by time, that Girdhari Lal did not execute a will and that if he had executed the will in question it had been revoked by him. Two out of these defences excepting the one that the will had not been executed, prevailed with the trial Court with the result that the suit was dismissed on the 28th of April, 1955. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge. Gurdaspur, who remanded the case for a report after recasting the issue of limitation. It was Bought to be ascertained by this remand as to whether the defendants had become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. The Senior Subordinate